"Reports from commenters" = unsubstantiated speculation. Weird how no one was able to specifically state any information about these unobjectionable photos except for a theoretical mechanism for them to find their way into the database.
Yes, of course, it's "unsubstantiated speculation", but how do you suppose the speculation be substantiated if the entire process and database are not available for audit? That's exactly the problem with this.
That isn't specific information - that is more speculation.
I expect people who make positive claims (the database contains innocuous images) to be able to back up those claims. Saying that there are innocuous images in the database is completely different from saying there may be innocuous images in the database.
It would be like if I claimed that there is a burglar in your house - and how do I know? Well all a burglar would have to do is break your window and crawl in.
